Novak Djokovic wipes his face as he leaves court during his men's final match against Rafael Nadal at the French Open. Photo: Benoit Tessier/Reuters

As warm sunshine bathed Paris on Monday morning, the idiocy of the postponed men's final of the French Open the night before was brought into focus.

The sight of tournament director M Gilbert Ysern floundering after a final that should have started earlier and could have been historic had ended (but was not completed) in dark, wet confusion was not unlike watching a duck drown. He flapped, glugged and sank under the inadequacy of his own argument.

At least he did not have to return to explain that Monday's interrupted match between Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, due to resume at 1pm, has to go into a second extra day. Nadal saw to that by winning the fourth set and a seventh Roland Garros singles title.

M Ysern, an urbane, middle-aged man in a nice suit, denied TV dictated the 3pm starting time (which would make tennis unique in modern sport), then said, "You cannot change overnight and tell all broadcasters in the world, 'Sorry, but you have to change everything … because we are going to change tomorrow's schedule.' It doesn't work like that. Out of respect to all the broadcasters we cannot ... change it at the last minute."

That, of course, would be putting fans ahead of the God Television. Yet to imagine TV companies cannot rearrange schedules is preposterous. It happens all the time. This was a timetable to suit American TV, which showed the match on Sunday morning to an audience not that bothered about the French Open, or tennis for that matter. Since the fading of the Williams sisters, the Americans rarely have a player at the business end of a tournament yet, because of their financial clout, Court Philipple Chatrier on Sunday was the scene of another tennis farce.

A match that could have started at 1pm, when the conditions were fine, finished at 6.51pm after an enforced half-hour break. Then, as the players struggled in the final hour under steady drizzle on a surface that was growing slowly more treacherous, the match referee, Stefan Fransson, belatedly intervened.

Nadal was furious, as he'd given up his advantage of an hour earlier, when conditions were no different, he said. Djokovic, roaring back into the match, was similarly frustrated, if for a different reason. A showpiece event thus was devalued as officials dithered, then twisted and turned to justify their inaction.

Vladimir Bojovic, who travelled from Belgrade to support Djokovic, did not see it like M Ysern.

"This is very bad organisation," he told Reuters. "They should have started the match earlier because they knew the forecast. This is just dreadful for tourists as we came for this day and now we have [to] pay even more money to change our flight tickets and spend an extra night in the hotel. This tournament needs to get with the 21st century, as Wimbledon has a roof and this place still does not."

Hearing Wimbledon mentioned in the same sentence as "the 21st century" reminds us that even the heart of the establishment can be moved to change. But not Paris. Not New York. At Flushing Meadows, the US Open will produce a home-grown champion before they put on a roof, or change the idiotic schedule.

The Americans are also prisoners of TV's insistence on loading the schedule at the end for a dramatic final weekend, regardless of the protests of the players, the public or, heaven forfend, the rest of the media. The issue came into the open again last year when Nadal, Djokovic, Andy Murray and Andy Roddick – already riled by their heavy year-round workload – complained as they dragged their tired bodies towards the finish line.

M Ysern says there is a roof "on the way" for Roland Garros.

Hurray!

"We will have to keep our fingers crossed for the next five years and hope we are going to avoid the rain on the final days."

Oh...

Even more disturbing was M Ysern's refusal to acknowledge the growing trend of long matches, especially finals, in major tournaments, and to make the necessary contingency plans. The participants here, Nadal and Djokovic, spent nearly six hours over the Australian Open title in Melbourne five months ago, the longest final in the history of the game. They had a similar marathon a few months earlier at the US Open.

Fitness, slow surfaces, heavy balls, bigger sweet spots on rackets, strategy, attitude, training culture: all of these have been factors in extending rallies and the length of matches since tennis tried to spike the quick-rally power game of the 90s. These developments, discussed almost daily in the era of baseline slugfeasts, somehow have passed M Ysern by. If he looked abroad, he might have noticed the last four US Opens have gone into Monday because of rain.

Neither is he a student of tennis history, it seems. As long ago as 1973, the French Open's final went into Tuesday because of rain. It has been a factor in the outdoor sport forever. It took the drenched 2001 final between Pat Rafter and Goran Ivanisevic to convince Wimbledon they needed a roof. Melbourne also has a roof. Paris, as ever, remains aloof, roofless — and a laughing stock.